so like,

[The42Yardstick]

I vote OK_Cat. We can't have him around if we want to continue our tradition of being a bbs that is fun for the whole family

[slimz]

I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided.  It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons.  They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned.  But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with.  What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning.  So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning.  Here are a few examples of good reasons.

Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.

At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle.  PI is for maintenance only.  When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty.  Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.

i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.

I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)

Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc. 

[steve dave]

I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided.  It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons.  They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned.  But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with.  What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning.  So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning.  Here are a few examples of good reasons.

Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.

At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle.  PI is for maintenance only.  When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty.  Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.

i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.

I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)

Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.  

Do they have an arbitrary island vote off?  If not, no thanks.  

UPDATE:

clams:  571
chum:  784
rick daris:  21,242
jtksu:  2
clams:  953

[pissclams]

OMFG, (p)rick daris leads the vote.  sorry bud, go eat a sandwich and quench your sorrows bud, looks like the tribe has spoken.

 

[CNS]

Looks like the new posters on the football board are voting often.

[Dr Rick Daris]

I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided.  It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons.  They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned.  But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with.  What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning.  So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning.  Here are a few examples of good reasons.

Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.

At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle.  PI is for maintenance only.  When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty.  Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.

i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.

I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)

Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.  

Do they have an arbitrary island vote off?  If not, no thanks.  

UPDATE:

clams:  571
chum:  784
rick daris:  21,242
jtksu:  2
clams:  953

looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!

[pissclams]

I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided.  It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons.  They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned.  But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with.  What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning.  So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning.  Here are a few examples of good reasons.

Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.

At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle.  PI is for maintenance only.  When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty.  Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.

i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.

I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)

Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc. 

Do they have an arbitrary island vote off?  If not, no thanks. 

UPDATE:

clams:  571
chum:  784
rick daris:  21,242
jtksu:  2
clams:  953

looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!

go back to Tardville, n00b.

[Dr Rick Daris]

I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided.  It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons.  They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned.  But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with.  What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning.  So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning.  Here are a few examples of good reasons.

Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.

At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle.  PI is for maintenance only.  When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty.  Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.

i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.

I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)

Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc. 

Do they have an arbitrary island vote off?  If not, no thanks. 

UPDATE:

clams:  571
chum:  784
rick daris:  21,242
jtksu:  2
clams:  953

looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!

go back to Tardville, n00b.

uh oh. looks like this thing was too confusing for most of the folks around here. i've been sifting through pms since this voting started and all of them are from people saying that they voted for me and hope that i win. it seems like people are voting for who should stay or who they think is the best. we better ratchet this thing down for the time being and then start a new poll when we get the "kinks" worked out.

[bakerman]

 

[CHONGS]

Hell, I would ban almost everybody, including over half of the so-called mods around here.

[steve dave]

Hell, I would ban almost everybody, including over half of the so-called mods around here.

chings voted for clams fwiw

[Dr Rick Daris]

so, just so we're all on the same page...it looks like i'll go ahead and meet with everyone privately over the next week and we'll "hammer" out something better than this convoluted, poorly thought out/executed nomination and voting process that seemed to only confuse the masses. live and learn on this one guys.

[Saulbadguy]

I bet over 200 of our members are spambots.  Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.

[steve dave]

I bet over 200 of our members are spambots.  Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.

saul voted for rick daris

[CHONGS]

Well let's just do this then.
 rd is BANNED

[Dr Rick Daris]

Well let's just do this then.
 rd is BANNED

good luck here. seems like somebody is forgetting whos sister is married to bsac. you guys could never pull it off even if you wanted to.

[Saulbadguy]

Rick Daris is evading our BAN's.  eff.  Will have to "IP Ban" him.

[Dr Rick Daris]

whoever took away my ability to mod and see the secret board better change it back before the end of the day. completely serious.

[asava]

I bet over 200 of our members are spambots.  Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.

those are our best posters.

[WillieWatanabe]

 

[The42Yardstick]

Kinda thinking about having Kobach sue this board b/c my vote didn't count

[OK_Cat]

i thought we were voting on who was bringing rice krispies to school tomorrow.   

[CNS]

Connection Problems
Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.

JFC, guys!  Was that a warning shot?????????

[slimz]

RD sock?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6684.0

[Pete]

Wow.  This is getting pretty ugly.  I just received my second death threat of the week.